The biggest loophole of all, though, is capital gains. There are a number of economic arguments used to justify a lower capital gains tax rate, particularly the belief that it boosts savings, investment, and economic growth. Problem is, the economic studies are ambiguous at best. Louis Johnston, economist at College of Saint Benedict/St. John’s University, notes that when capital gains taxes were cut in 1998 and in 2003, savings rates did not pick up and the GDP growth rate declined. “Nobody has been able to show any relationship across countries and within countries over time between capital gains taxes and economic growth,” says Joel Slemrod, economist at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. “It’s one of a million things that affect economic growth, and if it were huge, we’d be able to pick it up out of the data.”

Of course, it'd be a bit of pain for me too, I'd lose my mortgage deduction, but I'd gladly lose it to simplify the tax code and see that even the very wealthy are paying a more reasonable %.

Zute wrote:Do you think your 1% is getting wealthy on money that just appears magically from the air? It comes from the 99%. The less the 99% have, the more the 1% have and visa versa.

Where does the wealth come from, in the first place?

Do you really think a nation of 300 million proletariat would have a GDP similar to that of the United States?

How many times does your theory have to be proven wrong (without ever being proven right) for you to abandon it?

Not sure if you just blew your own flawed theory on purpose or accident Considering there are countries who have a better GDP than us with a smaller population, yes. Then again, they are shipping the stuff to us because we are the only country willing to buy the junk (But that's a discussion about demand, advertising, and psychology/sociology)

How many times do you have to be reminded that top/down economics is a historically proven failure at the national level? There needs to be a balance or resemblance of balance. So, you continue to say our theory's fail because you keep stating, "where does the money come from?" Well, we keep answering you, you need to abandon the theory or elaborate in some fashion that holds evidence of non-fallacy. Again, the fallacy of your argument is that ALL money comes from top/down and any disruption of this principle would somehow compromise the "system." We could also test your statement by saying If/Then and checking for truth/Fail. If Wealthy money is how the poor are paid, then poor people would not be paid without rich people. That is your theory. Because "That's where the wealth (money) is coming from" so you want us to think. Can you see the fallacy in your own argument?